That is very interesting and I'm finding it hard to pick a side here. Having two serves means the players can risk things on the first serve and be brave and fast. But, if there was one serve, the tension in a match would be greater and you'd have more rallies and I like that even though they can sometimes be nail-biting but on the other hand the serves would be slower and probably boring. Anyone agree?

hmn...yea very interesting debate that!!...its something that is very hard to decide on and i think the easiest thing is to just stick with the rules of the game...2 serves, as usualalthough i think maybe, in some of the trouneys they could try it out....the tension would be amazing, and the players would really start to count each and every point...but on the other hand, 1 serve means MANY misses - when it's like 5th set the players could just loose a game on 5 serves going out and stupid mistakes - that's just giving points away...and, people like Andy Roddick (huge serves) will have such an advantage over the not-so-good serves....for example daniela huntuchova would REALLY struggle against some one like Davenport who has good serves...dunno really, interesting issue!

Wow, yes it is really hard to come down on one side of this debate, but I'd really like to see what the effect of one serve would be. Good if they could try it out out in a tournament and see how it pans out. But can't help but think it'd put the big servers at a huge advantage. In fact, while typing this out, am thinking I'm more in favour of leaving things as they stand. :? I think.....

I think the tie break was a huge improvement ( I'm guessing a lot of you wont remember there was a time when tie breaks weren't heard of! ) but nope. Tennis would be impoverished if only one service was allowed.

The tie-break was brought in, as long games were becoming the norm (5 hours for some matches) I think they add more excitement to the game.

Left handers would have an advantage if one service only was allowed, as their serves are naturally served into the right handers bankhand....also players like Roddick would lose a tremendous weapon, with their first serve. When he gets his first serve in, he must win a huge majority of his games.

He's the main organiser of the Indian Wells Masters Tournament now. (Charlie Pasarell, that is. He was just starting his career when he lost that match while Gonzales was a legend) Charlie was really PHWOAR back then, but now he's got really fat and jowly. How illusions are shattered.